Fixora — Field Service Management SaaS

All-in-one field service management for AC, fridge, washer & electrical repair businesses.

Product ID: B0308-51959
Builder: Jehan Ahmed
Version reviewed: 1.0.0 · released 4 Nov 2026
Stack: None: zero-dependency Node.js server, vanilla JS frontend, no build step · JavaScript (Node.js 20+, no npm packages) · Supabase (PostgreSQL); no minimum version stated in the digest
Built with: OpenAI Codex
Review period: 2 Nov 2026 – 4 Nov 2026

Download PDF View the product

73out of 100 Listed after a manual reviewPass mark 75 and no failing check.

Scores

Security67

Code structure72

Docs & completeness60

Dependency health96

Build & deploy80

AI code audit6 checks · 2 Nov 2026
Installed & run4 Nov 2026
Demo vs delivered4 Nov 2026
Final sign-off4 Nov 2026

At a glance

Installed and run from the delivered code — 8 of 8 checks answered yes.
Live demo compared with the delivered code — 7 of 7 checks answered yes.
15 of 25 promised items delivered (setup guide, example config and the rest).
Security scored 67/100 with no failing check.
5 open warnings — explained in part 1.

Part 1

AI code audit

The full source archive was read by our AI auditor against each check. It reads the code — it does not run it; running it is part 2.

Check	What we found	Score	Result
Secrets & credentials	The regex candidates are code references to environment variables, user-supplied tokens, or test fixtures, not live credentials. .env.example is blank by design and .env is excluded from the archive and Docker image. The only concern is that the same demo passwords are repeated across the test suite, and a buyer who copies them into a public demo would be using guessable credentials.	90	Warning
Dependency vulnerabilities	package.json declares an empty dependencies object, so Fixora ships no third-party npm packages and has no known-CVE exposure from dependencies. package-lock.json is present, and the Dockerfile uses the maintained node:20-alpine image. Remaining concerns are minor: the base image tag is a floating minor and Node 20 is approaching end-of-life.	96	Pass
Authorisation & access control	The visible code requires a Bearer token on authenticated routes, with documented exceptions for login and booking only. The route table in server.js is truncated, so per-route role checks and ownership checks on id lookups could not be traced. Password storage is delegated to Supabase Auth, but the in-memory store handles passwords in a way that could not be verified.	55	Warning
Database access rules	The data layer (a project file) talks to Supabase over REST, which usually avoids raw SQL concatenation, but the excerpts show none of the query construction, delete/update scoping, or schema/migration files. Tenant scoping, foreign keys, indexes and cascade rules cannot be confirmed, and plaintext password handling in the store is a concern.	55	Warning
Code structure & duplication	The top-level split (lib/ for store, rules, whatsapp and demo data; public/ for the frontend; test/ and scripts/) is readable and keeps business rules out of the UI. The main costs are that server.js is described as the whole backend and mixes routing, auth, and invoice and reminder logic, and that app.js is a single 122 KB file. Schema, migrations and setup docs are also repeated across several files, and the demo credentials are copied into four test files.	72	Warning
Build reproducibility	The project has no npm dependencies, a pinned Node 20+ engine, and a README that runs database creation, then config, then start in the right order. A clean machine can very likely run it. The Dockerfile and compose healthcheck have small gaps, and HowToSetup.md was not visible in the excerpts, so its steps could not be checked.	80	Warning

Open warnings

Problems that did not stop the listing. They stay on the product page until a later version fixes them.

Warning 1 No real credentials found; demo passwords hardcoded in tests are weak defaults

The regex candidates are code references to environment variables, user-supplied tokens, or test fixtures, not live credentials. .env.example is blank by design and .env is excluded from the archive and Docker image. The only concern is that the same demo passwords are repeated across the test suite, and a buyer who copies them into a public demo would be using guessable credentials.

Warning 2 Zero-dependency Node app is mostly reproducible; Dockerfile and setup docs have small gaps

The project has no npm dependencies, a pinned Node 20+ engine, and a README that runs database creation, then config, then start in the right order. A clean machine can very likely run it. The Dockerfile and compose healthcheck have small gaps, and HowToSetup.md was not visible in the excerpts, so its steps could not be checked.

Warning 3 Database access cannot be verified: schema, migrations and query code were not in the excerpts

The data layer (a project file) talks to Supabase over REST, which usually avoids raw SQL concatenation, but the excerpts show none of the query construction, delete/update scoping, or schema/migration files. Tenant scoping, foreign keys, indexes and cascade rules cannot be confirmed, and plaintext password handling in the store is a concern.

Warning 4 Authz design looks sound, but most routes and password handling are not visible, so it cannot be confirmed

The visible code requires a Bearer token on authenticated routes, with documented exceptions for login and booking only. The route table in server.js is truncated, so per-route role checks and ownership checks on id lookups could not be traced. Password storage is delegated to Supabase Auth, but the in-memory store handles passwords in a way that could not be verified.

Warning 5 Layered layout is sensible, but server.js and app.js are oversized and the release duplicates migrations and docs

The top-level split (lib/ for store, rules, whatsapp and demo data; public/ for the frontend; test/ and scripts/) is readable and keeps business rules out of the UI. The main costs are that server.js is described as the whole backend and mixes routing, auth, and invoice and reminder logic, and that app.js is a single 122 KB file. Schema, migrations and setup docs are also repeated across several files, and the demo credentials are copied into four test files.

Requirement list

What the builder agreed to deliver before uploading — 15 of 25 met.

Complete source of the web app and API Partial
No real credentials: config files may be present but must contain placeholders or local defaults only Met
Exactly one example config file: .env.example Partial
Database schema that creates from empty Partial
HowToSetup.md with at least two install targets Partial
Pinned dependencies and lockfile Met
Role-gated routes and per-user data isolation Partial
Live demo with sample data Partial
README.md, CLAUDE.md and CHANGELOG.md at root (nice)Met
Seed data for demo (nice)Met
Code structure without giant files (nice)Partial
Parameterised database queries Partial
Docs folder with deployment notes (optional)Missing
README.md Met
HowToSetup.md Met
CLAUDE.md (nice)Met
CHANGELOG.md (nice)Met
LICENSE-NOTE.md Met
Web a project filee Met
Web a project file Met
Web a project file Met
Web a project file (nice)Met
a project file Met
a project file (nice)Met
a project file (optional)Missing

Part 2

Human review

Reviewers from the Vibe96 team in Dubai worked through each question below; a final reviewer signed it off.

Stage 1 — Installed and run from the delivered code

Completed 4 Nov 2026

A reviewer installed the product on a clean machine, following only the guide that ships with it.

Question	Answer	Reviewer's note
Packages restored without errors	Yes
Solution builds clean	Yes
Database created from the shipped script or migrations	Yes
First sign-in works with the documented steps	Yes
Setup guide is accurate and complete	Yes
Every module in the feature list opens and works	Yes
No real secrets in the archive	Yes
Branding and company details can be changed without code	Yes

Stage 2 — Live demo compared with the delivered code

Completed 4 Nov 2026

A second reviewer checked that what the listing and demo show is what the buyer receives.

Question	Answer	Reviewer's note
Demo URL is reachable	Yes
Demo credentials work	Yes
Demo runs the same version as the archive	Yes
All five differentiators are visible in the demo	Yes
Screenshots match the demo	Yes
Nothing in the demo is missing from the code	Yes
Datasheet claims are accurate	Yes

Changes asked for during review

None — approved on the first round.
Sign-off: approved for sale on 4 Nov 2026 with 5 warnings shown publicly.

What this report covers — and what it doesn't

It covers version 1.0.0 exactly as the buyer downloads it: the source archive, the setup guide and the live demo on the dates above.
It is not a penetration test, a performance or load test, or a legal review of third-party package licences.
Scores are a point in time. Libraries age; a later version is audited again and gets its own report.
Your setup matters. Hosting, configuration and changes made after purchase are outside this review.
How the score is made: each AI check is scored 0–100 and weighted (security counts most). A listing needs 75 or more, no failing check, and the human review passed.
Always try the live demo before buying, and ask the builder questions from the product page.

Vibe96 FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE. This report describes the product at the time of review and is not a warranty.